APPENDIX (G).

On the so-called “Ammonian Sections”
and “Eusebian Canons”.

(Referred to at p. 130.)

I. THAT the Sections (popularly miscalled “Ammonian”) with which
Eusebius [A.D. 320] has made the world thoroughly familiar, and of which some account
was given above (pp. 127-8), cannot be the same which Ammonius of Alexandria [A.D.
220] employed,—but must needs be the invention of Eusebius himself,—admits of demonstration.
On this subject, external testimony is altogether insecure543543 Jerome evidently supposed that Ammonius was the author of
the Canons as well:—“Canones quos Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus
Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco
habentur expressimus.” (Ad Papam Damasum. Epist.) And again: “Ammonius . . . . Evangelicos, Canones excogitavit quos postea secutus est Eusebius
Caesariensis.” (De Viris Illustr. c. 55 [Opp. ii. 881.])—See above, p.128.. The only safe appeal
is to the Sections_ themselves.

1. The Call of the Four Apostles is described by the first three
Evangelists, within the following limits of their respective Gospels:—S. Matthew
iv. 18-22: S. Mark 1 16-20: S. Luke (with the attendant miraculous draught of fishes,)
v. 1-11. Now, these three portions of narrative are observed to be dealt with in
the sectional system of Eusebius after the following extraordinary fashion: (the
fourth column represents the Gospel according to S. John):—

It will be perceived from this, that Eusebius subdivides these
three portions of the sacred Narrative into ten Sections (“§§;”)—of which three
belong to S. Matthew, viz. §§ 20, 21, 22:—three to S. Mark, viz. §§ 9, 10, 11:—four
to S. Luke, viz. §§ 29, 30, 31, 32: which ten Sections, Eusebius distributes over
four of his Canons: referring three of them to his IInd Canon, (which exhibits what
S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke have in common); four of them to his VIth Canon,
(which shews what S. Matthew and S. Mark have in common); one, to his IXth, (which
contains what is common to S. Luke and S. John); two, to his Xth, (in which is found
what is peculiar to each Evangelist.)

Now, the design which Eusebius had in breaking up this
portion of the sacred Text, (S. Matth. iv. 18-22, S. Mark i. 16-20, S. Luke v. 1-11,)
after so arbitrary a fashion, into ten portions; divorcing three of those Sections
from S. Matthew’s Gospel, (viz. S. Luke’s §§ 29, 30, 31); and connecting one of
these last three (§ 30) with two Sections (§§ 219, 222) of S. John;—is
perfectly plain. His object was, (as he himself explains,) to shew—not only
(a) what S. Matthew has in common with S. Mark and S. Luke; but also (b)
what S. Luke has in common with S. John;—as well as (c) what S. Luke
has peculiar to himself. But, in the work of Ammonius, as far as we know
anything about that work, all this would have been simply impossible. (I have
already described his “Diatessaron,” at pp. 126-7.) Intent on exhibiting the Sections
of the other Gospels which correspond with the Sections of S. Matthew, Ammonius
would not if he could,—(and he could not if he would,)—have dissociated from its
context S. Luke’s account of the first miraculous draught of fishes in the beginning
of our Lord’s Ministry, for the purpose of establishing its resemblance to S. John’s
account of the second miraculous draught of fishes which took place after
the Resurrection, and is only found in S. John’s Gospel. These Sections therefore
are “Eusebian,” not Ammonian. They are necessary, according to the scheme
of Eusebius. They are not only unnecessary and even meaningless, but actually impossible,
in the Ammonian scheme.

2. Let me call attention to another, and, as I think, a more convincing
instance. I am content in fact to narrow the whole question to the following single
issue:—Let mo be shown how it is rationally conceivable that Ammomus can have split
up S. John xxi. 12, 13, into three distinct Sections; and S. John xxi. 15,
16, 17, into six? and yet, after so many injudicious disintegrations of the
sacred Text, how it is credible that he can have made but one Section of
S. John xxi. 18 to 25,—which nevertheless, from its very varied contents, confessedly
requires even repeated subdivision? . . . . Why .Eusebius did all this, is
abundantly plain. His peculiar plan constrained him to refer the former half
of ver. 12,—the latter half of verses 15, 16, 17—to
his IXth Canon, where
S. Luke and S. John are brought together; (ἐν ᾧ οἱ δύο τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι):—and to consign the latter half of ver. 12,—the former
half of verses 15, 16, 17,—together with the whole of the last eight verses
of S. John’s Gospel, to his Xth (or last) Canon, where what is peculiar to each
of the four Evangelists is set down, (ἐν ᾧ περὶ τίνων
ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἰδίως ἀνέγραψεν.)
But Ammonius, because he confessedly recognised no such canons, was under
no such constraint. He had in fact no such opportunity. He therefore simply
cannot have adopted the same extraordinary sectional subdivision.

3. To state the matter somewhat differently, and perhaps to exhibit
the argument in a more convincing form:—The Canons of Eusebius,
and the so-called “Ammonian Sections,”—(by which, confessedly, nothing else whatever is meant
but the Sections of Eusebius,)—are discovered mutually to imply one another.
Those Canons are without meaning or use apart from the Sections,—for the sake of
which they were clearly invented. Those Sections, whatever convenience they may
possess apart from the Canons, nevertheless are discovered to presuppose the Canons
throughout: to be manifestly subsequent to them in order of time: to depend upon
them for their very existence: in some places to be even unaccountable in the eccentricity
of their arrangement, except when explained by the requirements of the Eusebian Canons. I say—That particular sectional subdivision,
298in other words, to which the epithet
“Ammonian” is popularly
applied,—(applied however without authority, and in fact by the merest license,)—proves
on careful inspection to have been only capable of being devised by one who was already in possession of the Canons of
Eusebius.
In

plain terms, they are demonstrably the work of
Eusebius himself,—who expressly claims The Canons for his own
(κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι), and leaves it to be inferred that he is the Author of the Sections
also. Wetstein (Proleg. p. 70,) and Bishop Lloyd (in the “Monitum” prefixed
to his ed. of the Greek Test. p. x,) so understand the matter; and Mr. Scrivener
(Introduction, p. 51) evidently inclines to the same opinion.

II. I desire, in the next place, to point out that a careful inspection
of the Eusebian “Sections,” (for Eusebius himself calls them περικοπαί, not
κεφάλαια,) leads inevitably to the inference that they are only rightly
understood when regarded in the light of “Marginal References.” This has been hitherto
overlooked. Bp. Lloyd, in the interesting “Monitum” already quoted, remarks of the
Eusebian Canons,—“quorum haec est utilitas, ut eorum scilicet ope quivis, nullo labore,
Harmoniam sibi quatuor Evangeliorum possit conficere.” The learned Prelate can never
have made the attempt in this way “Harmoniam sibi conficere,” or he would not have
so written. He evidently did not advert to the fact that Eusebius refers his readers
(in his IIIrd Canon) from S. John’s account of the Healing of the Nobleman’s
son to the account given by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the Healing of the
Centurion’s servant. It is perfectly plain in fact that to enable a reader “to
construct for himself a Harmony of the Gospels,” was no part of Eusebius’
intention; and quite certain that any one who shall ever attempt to avail himself
of the system of Sections and Canons before us with that object, will speedily find
himself landed in hopeless confusion544544 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome
quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones
Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones. It is merely the contents of the X Canons
of Eusebius printed in extenso,—and of course is no “Harmony”
at all. It would have been a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the
editor, strange to say, has omitted to number the sections..

But in fact there is no danger of his making much progress in
his task. His first discovery would probably be that S. John’s weighty doctrinal
statements concerning our Lord’s Eternal Godhead in
chap. i. 1-5: 9, 10: 14, are represented as parallel with the Human Genealogy
of our Saviour as recorded by S. Matthew i. 1-16, and by
S. Luke iii. 23-38:—the
next, that the first half of the Visit of the Magi (S. Matthew ii. 1-6) is exhibited
as corresponding with S. John vii. 41, 42.—Two such facts ought to open the eyes
of a reader of ordinary acuteness quite wide to the true nature of the Canons of
Eusebius. They are Tables of Reference only.

Eusebius has in fact himself explained his object in constructing
them; which (he says) was twofold: (lst) To enable a reader to see at a glance,
“which of the Evangelists have said things of the same kind,”
(τίνες τὰ παραπλήσια εἰρήκασι: the phrase occurs
four times in the
course of his short Epistle): and (2ndly), To enable him to find out where
they have severally done so: (τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ
τόπους, ἐν οἷς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἡνέχθησαν εἰπεῖν; Eusebius uses the phrase
twice.)
But this, (as all are aware) is precisely the office of (what are called) “Marginal
References.” Accordingly,

(d.) From the mention of the last Passover by the three earlier Evangelists,
(S. Matth. xxvi. 1, 2: S. Mark xiv. 1: S. Luke xxii. 1,) we are referred to S. John’s
mention of the first Passover (ii. 13 = § 20); and of the second (vi.
4 = § 48); as well as of the fourth (xi. 55 = § 96.)

(e.) From the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, as recorded
by S. Matth. (xxvi. 16), S. Mark (xiv. 22), and
S. Luke (xxii. 19),—we are referred
to the four following Sections of our Lord’s Discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum
recorded by S. John, which took place a year before,—S. John vi. 35, 36: 48: 51:
55: (§§ 55, 63, 65, 67).

(f.) Nothing but the spirit in which “Marginal References” are made
would warrant a critic in linking together three incidents like the following,—similar,
indeed, yet entirely distinct: viz. S. Matth. xxvii. 34: S. Mark xv. 24: and S.
John xix. 28, 29.

(g.) I was about to say that scarcely could such an excuse be invented
for referring a Reader from S. Luke xxii. 32, to S. John xxi. 15, and 16, and 17
§§ 227, 228, 229,)—but I perceive that the same three References stand in the margin
of our own Bibles. Not even the margin of the English Bible, however, sends a Reader
(as the IXth Canon of Eusebius does) from our Lord’s eating “broiled fish and
honeycomb,”
in the presence of the ten Apostles at Jerusalem on the evening of the first Easter-Day,
(S. Luke xxiv. 41-43 (= § 341,)) to His feeding the seven Apostles with bread and
fish at the Sea of Galilee many days after. (S. John xxi. 9, 10: 12: 13 = §§ 221,
223, 224.)—And this may suffice.

It is at all events certain that the correctest notion of the
use and the value of the Eusebian Sections will be obtained by one who will be at
the pains to substitute for the Eusebian Numbers in the margin of a copy
of the Greek Gospels the References which these numbers severally indicate.
It will then become plain that the system of Sections and Canons which Eusebius
invented,—ingenious, interesting, and useful
301as it certainly is; highly important also, as being the known
work of an illustrious Father of the Church, as well as most precious occasionally
for critical purposes547547 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to
have been recognised at least by Eusebius. Our Lord’s Agony in the Garden for
instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by him numbered § 283: and
that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28, he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever
Tischendorf may say to the contrary. (See p. 293.),—is nothing else but a clumsy substitute for what is achieved
by an ordinary “Reference Bible”:—participating in every inconvenience incidental
to the unskilfully contrived apparatus with which English readers are familiar548548 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References
follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in the order of
their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand:—and that,
(2) actual Quotations, and oven Allusions to other parte of Scripture when they
are undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also
certain that, (3) to a far greater extent than at present, sets of References
might be kept together; not scattered about in small parcels over the whole
Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4) it is
to be wished that strictly parallel places in the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their
similarity of subject or expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful
illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer possible to
purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? Who does not miss the
reference to “Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12” at Gen. ix. 14?
Who can afford to
do without the reference to “1 Macc. iv. 59” at S. John x. 22?,
and yet inferior in the following four respects:—

(1st.) The references of Eusebius, (except those found in Canon
X.), require in every instance to be deciphered, before they can be verified;
and they can only be deciphered by making search, (and sometimes laborious search,)
in another part of the volume. They are not, in fact, (nor do they pretend to be,)
references to the inspired Text at all; but only references to the Eusebian Canons.

(2ndly.) In their scope, they are of course strictly confined
to the Gospels,—which most inconveniently limits their use, as well as diminishes
their value. (Thus, by no possibility is Eusebius able to refer a reader from S.
Luke xxii. 19, 20 to 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.)

(3rdly.) By the very nature of their constitution, reference even
to another part of the same Gospel is impossible. (Eusebius
302is unable, for example, to refer a reader from S. John xix.
39, to iii. 1 and vii. 50.)

But besides the preceding, which are disadvantages inherent in
the scheme and inseparable from it, it will be found (4thly), That Eusebius, while
he introduces not a few wholly undesirable references, (of which some specimens
are supplied above), is observed occasionally to withhold references which cannot
by any means be dispensed with. Thus, he omits to refer his reader from S. Luke’s
account of the visit to the Sepulchre (chap. xxiv. 12) to S. John’s memorable account
of the same transaction (chap. xx. 3-10): not because he disallowed the verse
in S. Luke’s Gospel,—for in a certain place he discusses its statements549549 Mai, vol. iv. p. 287. See also p. 293..

III. It is abundantly plain from all that has gone before that the work of
Eusebius was entirely different in its structure
and intention from the work of Ammonius. Enough, in fact, has been said to make it fully apparent that it is nothing
short of impossible that there can have been any extensive correspondence
between the two. According to Eusebius, S. Mark has 21
Sections550550 Tischendorf says 19 only.peculiar to
his Gospel: S. Luke, 72: S. John, 97551551 Tischendorf says 96 only.. According to the same
Eusebius, 14 Sections552552 Tischendorf says 13 only. are common to S. Luke and S. Mark only: 21, to S. Luke and S. John only.
But those 225 Sections can have found no place in the work of
Ammonius.
And if, (in some unexplained way,) room was found for those parts of the
Gospels, with what possible motive can Ammonius have subdivided them into exactly
225 portions? It is nothing else but irrational to assume that he did so.

Not unaware am I that it has been pointed out by a most judicious
living Critic as a “ground for hesitation before we ascribe the Sections
as well as the Canons to Eusebius, that not a few ancient MSS. contain the former
while they omit the latter553553 Scrivener specifies the following Codd. C, F, H, I, P, Q, R, W6, Y,
Z, 54, 59, 60, 68, 440, iscr, Bscr (Cod. Bezae, p. xx,
and Introd. pp. 51, 2.) Add Evan. 117: (but I think not 263.).” He considers it to be certainly indicated thereby
“that in the judgment of critics and transcribers,
303(whatever that judgment may be doomed worth,) the Ammonian Sections
had a previous existence to the Eusebian Canons, as well as served for an independent
purpose.” But I respectfully demur to the former of the two proposed inferences.
I also learn with surprise that “those who have studied them most, can the least
toll what use the Ammonian Sections can servo, unless in connection with Canons
of Harmony554554 Scrivener’s Introduction, pp. 51 and 52: Cod. Bezae,
p. xx. note [2.].”

However irregular and arbitrary these subdivisions of the Evangelical
text are observed to be in their construction, their usefulness is paramount. They
are observed to fulfil exactly the same office as our own actual division
of the Text into 89 Chapters and 3780 Verses. Of course, 1165 subdivisions are (for
certain purposes) somewhat loss convenient than 3780;—but on the other hand, a place
in the Gospels would be more easily discovered, I suspect, for the most part, by
the employment of such a single set of consecutive numbers, than by requiring a
Reader first to find the Chapter by its Roman numeral, and then the Verse by its
Arabic figure. Be this as it may, there can be at least only one opinion
as to the supreme convenience to a Reader, whether ancient or modern, of
knowing that the copy of the Gospels which he holds in his hands is subdivided into
exactly the same 1165 Sections as every other Greek copy which is likely to come
in his way; and that, in every such copy, he may depend on finding every one of
those sections invariably distinguished by the self-same number.

A Greek copy of the Gospels, therefore, having its margin furnished
with the Eusebian Sectional notation, may be considered to correspond generally
with an English copy merely divided into Chapters and Verses. The addition of the
Eusebian Canons at the beginning, with numerical references thereto inserted
in the margin throughout, does but superadd something analogous to the convenience
of our Marginal References,—and may just as reasonably (or just as unreasonably)
be dispensed with.

I think it not improbable, in fact, that in the preparation of
a Codex, it will have been sometimes judged commercially
304expedient to leave its purchaser to decide whether he would or
would not submit to the additional expense (which in the case of illuminated MSS.
must have been very considerable) of having the Eusebian Tables inserted at the
commencement of his Book555555 Evan. 263, for instance, has certainly blank Eusebian
Tables at the beginning: the frame only.,—without which the References thereto would confessedly
have been of no manner of avail. In this way it will have come to pass, (as
Mr. Scrivener points out,) that “not a few ancient MSS. contain the Sections
but omit the Canons.” Whether, however, the omission of References to
the Canons in Copies which retain in the margin the sectional numbers, is to be
explained in this way, or not,—Ammonius, at all events, will have had no
more to do with either the one or the other, than with our modern division into
Chapters and Verses. It is, in short, nothing else but a “vulgar error” to designate
the Eusebian Sections as the “Sections of Ammonius.” The expression cannot
be too soon banished from our critical terminology. Whether banished or retained,
to reason about the lost work of Ammonius from the Sections of
Eusebius (as Tischendorf and the rest habitually do) is an offence against historical Truth which
no one who values his critical reputation will probably hereafter venture to commit.

IV. This subject may not be dismissed until a circumstance of
considerable interest has been explained which has already attracted some notice,
but which evidently is not yet understood by Biblical Critics556556 See
Scrivener’s Introduction,
p. 51 (note 2),—where Tregelles (in Horne’s Introd. iv. 200) is quoted..

As already remarked, the necessity of resorting to the Eusebian
Tables of Canons in order to make any use of a marginal reference, is a tedious
and a cumbersome process; for which, men must have early sought to devise a remedy.
They were not slow in perceiving that a far simpler expedient would be to note at
the foot of every page of a Gospel the numbers of the Sections of that Gospel
contained in extenso on the same page; and, parallel with those numbers,
to exhibit the numbers of the corresponding Sections in the
305other Gospels. Many Codices, furnished with such an apparatus
at the foot of the page, are known to exist557557 e.g. Codd. M, 262 and 264. (I
saw at least one other at Paris, but I have not preserved a record of the
number.) To these, Tregelles adds E; (Scrivener’s
Introduction, p. 51, note [2].) Scrivener odds Wd, and Tischendorf
Tb, (Scrivener’s Cod. Bezae, p. xx.). For instance, in Cod. 262 ( = Reg.
53, at Paris), which is written in double columns, at foot of the first page
(fol. 111) of S. Mark, is found as follows:—

The meaning of this, every one will see who,—(remembering what
is signified by the monograms ΜΡ, Λο., Ιω,
ΜΘ558558 The order of these monograms requires explanation.)—will turn successively to the IInd,
the Ist, the VIth, and the Ist of the Eusebian Canons. Translated into expressions
more familiar to English readers, it evidently amounts to this: that we are referred,

(I venture to add that any one who will compare the above with
the margin of S. Mark’s Gospel in a common English “reference Bible,” will obtain
a very fair notion of the convenience, and of the inconveniences of the Eusebian
system. But to proceed with our remarks on the apparatus at the foot of Cod. 262.)

The owner of such a MS. was able to refer to parallel passages, (as above,) by merely turning over the pages of his book.
E.g. The parallel places to S. Mark’s § 1 (A) being § 70 of S. Luke (O) and § 103 of S. Matthew (Ρ Γ),—it was just as easy
for him to find those two places as it is for us to turn to S. Luke vii. 27 and
S. Matth. xi. 10: perhaps easier.

V. I suspect that this peculiar method of exhibiting the Eusebian
references (Canons as well as Sections) at a glance, was derived to the Greek Church
from the Syrian Christians. What is certain, a precisely similar expedient for enabling
readers to discover Parallel Passages prevails extensively in the oldest
Syriac Evangelia extant. There are in the British Museum about twelve Syriac Evangelia
furnished with such an apparatus of reference559559 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450,
and 1, and 2, and 4, and 5, and 7, and 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s Catalogue, 4to. 1870.) Also Rich.
7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.; of which a specimen is subjoined,—derived
however (because it was near at hand) from a MS. in the Bodleian560560 “Dawkins
3.” See Dean Payne Smith’s
Catalogue, p. 72., of the viith
or viiith century.

From this MS., I select for obvious reasons the last page
but one (fol. 82) of S. Mark’s Gospel, which contains ch. xvi. 8-18. The
Reader will learn with interest and surprise that in the margin of this page
against ver. 8, is written in vermilion, by the original scribe,
281/1: against
ver. 9,—282/10: against ver. 10,—283/1: against ver. 11,—284/8: against ver. 12,—285/8: against ver. 13,—286/8: against ver.
14,—287/10: against ver. 15,—288/6: against ver. 16,—289/10: against ver. 19,—290/8. That these sectional numbers561561 It will be observed that, according to the Syrian scheme, every
verse of S. Mark xvi, from ver. 8 to ver. 16 inclusive, constitutes an independent
section (§§ 281-288): ver. 16-18 another (§ 289); and verr. 19-20, another (§ 290),
which is the last. The Greek scheme, as a rule, makes independent sections of verr.
8, 9, 14, 19, 20; but throws together ver. 10-11: 12-13: 15-16: 17-18. (Vide
infrà, p. 311.), with
references to the Eusebian Canons subscribed, are no part of the (so-called) “Ammonian”
system, will be recognised at a glance. According to that scheme, S.
Mark xiv. 8 is numbered 233/2. But to proceed.

At the foot of the same page, (which is written in two columns),
is found the following set of references to parallel places in the other
three Gospels:—

The exact English counterpart of which,—(I owe it to the kind
help of M. Neubauer, of the Bodleian),—is subjoined. The Reader will scarcely require
to be reminded that the reason why §§ 282, 287, 289 do not appear in this Table
is because those Sections, (belonging to the tenth Canon,) have nothing parallel
to them in the other Gospels.

Luke

Matthew

Mark

John

Luke

Matthew

Mark

391. . .

. . . 426

286288

247247

390390391393

421421. . .. . .

281283284285

The general intention of this is sufficiently obvious: but the
Reader must be told that on making reference to S. Matthew’s Gospel, in this Syriac
Codex, it is found that § 421 = chap. xxviii. 8; and § 426 = chap. xxviii. 10, 20:

Here then, although the Ten Eusebian Canons are faithfully retained,
it is much to be noted that we are presented with a different set of Sectional
subdivisions. This will be best understood by attentively comparing all the
details which precede with the Eusebian references in the inner margin of a copy
of Lloyd’s Greek Testament.

But the convincing proof that these Syriac Sections are
not those with which we have been hitherto acquainted from Greek MSS., is supplied
by the fact that they are so many
309more in number. The sum of the Sections in each of the
Gospels follows; for which, (the Bodleian Codex being mutilated,) I am indebted
to the learning and obligingness of Dr. Wright564564 “I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458;
and 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own Catalogue: the
last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London,
1838). All four agree in their numeration.”. He quotes from “the beautiful
MS. Addit. 7,157, written A.D. 768565565 See the preceding note.—Availing myself of the reference
given me by my learned correspondent, I read as follows in the Catalogue:—“Inter ipsa textus verba, numeria viridi colore pictis, notatur Canon harmoniae Eusebianae,
ad quem quaevis sectio referenda est. Sic, ..ו.. [i.e.
l] indicat canonem in
quo omnes Evangelistae concurrunt,” &c. &c..” From this, it appears that the Sections in
the Gospel according to,—

S. Matthew, (instead of being from
359 to 355,) are 426: (the last Section, §
426/6 consisting of ver. 19, 20.)

The sum of the Sections therefore, in Syriac MSS.
instead of being between 1181 and 1162566566 Suidas [A.D. 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke,
makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelist 1,171., is found to be invariably 1389.

But here, the question arises,—Did the Syrian Christians then
retain the Ten Tables, dressing their contents afresh, so as to adapt them to their
own ampler system of sectional subdivision? or did they merely retain the elementary
principle of referring each Section to one of Ten Canons, but substitute for the
Eusebian Tables a species of harmony, or apparatus of reference, at the foot of
every page?

The foregoing doubt is triumphantly resolved by a reference to
Assemani’s engraved representation, on xxii Copper Plates, of the X Eusebian Tables
from a superb Syriac Codex (A.D. 586) in the Medicean Library567567 This
sheet was all but out of the printer’s hands when the place in vol. i. of
Assemani’s Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) as shown me by my learned friend, P. E.
Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had
already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated
fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and
14,450.. The student who
310inquires for Assemani’s work will find that the numbers in the last line of each
of the X Tables is as follows:—

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Canon i
— ii
— iii
— iv
— v
— vi
— vii
— viii
— ix
— x

421
416
134
394
319
426425
. . .
. . .
422

283
276. . .212. . .288
. . .290. . .289

390383145. . .262
. . .. . .401399402

247. . .178223. . .
. . .249. . .262271

The Syrian Church, therefore, from a period of the remotest antiquity,
not only subdivided the Gospels into a far greater number of Sections than were
in use among the Greeks, but also habitually employed Eusebian Tables which—identical
as they are in appearance and in the principle of their arrangement
with those with which Greek MSS. have made us familiar,—yet differ materially from
these as to the numerical details of their contents.

Let abler men follow up this inquiry to its lawful results. When
the extreme antiquity of the Syriac documents is considered, may it not almost be
made a question whether Eusebius himself put forth the larger or the smaller number
of Sections? But however that may be, more palpably precarious than ever,
I venture to submit, becomes the confident assertion of the Critics that, “just
as Eusebius found these Verses [S. Mark xvi. 9-20] absent in
his day from the best
and most numerous [sic] copies, so was also the case with
Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the preceding century”568568 Dr. Tregelles. (Vide suprà, pp. 125-6.) And so, Tischendorf.. To speak plainly, the
statement is purely mythical.

VI. Birch [Varr. Lectt. p. 226], asserts that in the best
Codices, the Sections of S. Mark’s Gospel are not numbered beyond ch. xvi. 8. Tischendorf
prudently adds, “or ver. 9:”
311but
to introduce that alternative is to surrender everything. I subjoin the result
of an appeal to 151 Greek Evangelia. There is written opposite to,

Thus, it is found that 114 Codices sectionize the last Twelve
Verses, against 37 which close the account at ver. 8, or sooner. I infer—(a) That
the reckoning which would limit the sections to precisely 233, is altogether precarious;
and—(b) That the sum of the Sections assigned to S. Mark’s Gospel by Suidas and
by Stephens (viz. 236) is arbitrary.

VII. To some, it may not be unacceptable, in conclusion, to be
presented with the very words in which Eusebius explains how he would have his Sections
and Canons used. His language requires attention. He says:—

This may be a very masterly way of explaining the use of
the Eusebian Canons. But the points of the original are missed. What Eusebius actually
says is this:—

“If therefore, on opening any one soever of the four Gospels,
thou desirest to study any given Section, and to ascertain which of the Evangelists
have said things of the same kind; as well as to discover the particular place where
each has been led [to speak] of the same things;—note the number of the Section
thou art studying, and seek that number in the Canon indicated by the numeral subscribed
in vermilion. Thou wilt be made aware, at once, from the heading of each Canon,
how many of the Evangelists, and which of them, have said things of the same kind.
Then, by attending to the parallel numbers relating to the other Gospels in the
same Canon, and by turning to each in its proper place, thou wilt discover the Evangelists
saying things of the same kind.”

544 There was published at the University Press in 1805, a handsome
quarto volume (pp. 216) entitled Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum juxta Sectiones
Ammonianas et Eusebii Canones. It is merely the contents of the X Canons
of Eusebius printed in extenso,—and of course is no “Harmony”
at all. It would have been a really useful book, notwithstanding; but that the
editor, strange to say, has omitted to number the sections.

545 This last § according to Tischendorf’s ed. of the Eusebian
Canons.

546 This last § according to
Tischendorf’s ed. of the Eusebian
Canons.

547 Thus, certain disputed passages of importance are proved to
have been recognised at least by Eusebius. Our Lord’s Agony in the Garden for
instance, (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44—wanting in Cod. B,) is by him numbered § 283: and
that often rejected verse, S. Mark xv. 28, he certainly numbered § 216,—whatever
Tischendorf may say to the contrary. (See p. 293.)

548 It is obvious to suggest that, (1) whereas our Marginal References
follow the order of the Sacred Books, they ought rather to stand in the order of
their importance, or at least of their relevancy to the matter in hand:—and that,
(2) actual Quotations, and oven Allusions to other parte of Scripture when they
are undeniable, should be referred to in some distinguishing way. It is also
certain that, (3) to a far greater extent than at present, sets of References
might be kept together; not scattered about in small parcels over the whole
Book.—Above all, (as the point most pertinent to the present occasion,) (4) it is
to be wished that strictly parallel places in the Gospels might be distinguished from those which are illustrative only, or are merely recalled by their
similarity of subject or expression. All this would admit of interesting and useful
illustration. While on this subject, let me ask,—Why is it no longer possible to
purchase a Bible with References to the Apocrypha? Who does not miss the
reference to “Ecclus. xliii. 11, 12” at Gen. ix. 14?
Who can afford to
do without the reference to “1 Macc. iv. 59” at S. John x. 22?

559 Addit. MSS. 14,449: 14,450,
and 1, and 2, and 4, and 5, and 7, and 8: 14,463, and 9: 17,113. (Dr. Wright’s Catalogue, 4to. 1870.) Also Rich.
7,157. The reader is referred to Assemani; and to Adler, p. 52-3: also p. 63.

564 “I have examined for your purposes, Add. 14,449; 14,457; 14,458;
and 7,157. The first three are Nos. lxix, lxx, and lxxi, in my own Catalogue: the
last, a Nestorian MS., is No. xiii in the old Catalogue of Forshall and Rosen (London,
1838). All four agree in their numeration.”

566 Suidas [A.D. 980], by giving 236 to S. Mark and 348 to S. Luke,
makes the sum of the Sections in Greek Evangelist 1,171.

567 This
sheet was all but out of the printer’s hands when the place in vol. i. of
Assemani’s Bibliotheca Medicea, (fol. 1742,) as shown me by my learned friend, P. E.
Pusey, Esq., of Ch. Ch.—Dr. Wright had
already most obligingly and satisfactorily resolved my inquiry from the mutilated
fragments of the Canons, as well as of the Epistle to Carpianus in Add. 17,213 and
14,450.